> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Let me tell you why I don't think this is a bug. The optimizer will
> > choose ordered results over unordered results if the costs are the same.
> > In this case, the cost of the query is zero, so it chose to use the
> > index because the index produces an ordered result.
> >
> > This works well for un-vacuumed tables, because it thinks everything is
> > zero cost, and chooses the index.
>
> Agreed, this is ok as long as
>
> vac=> create table table1 (field1 int);
> CREATE
> vac=> insert into table1 values (1);
> INSERT 1583349 1
> vac=> create index i_table1__field1 on table1 (field1);
> CREATE
> vac=> explain select * from table1 where field1 = 1;
> NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>
> Seq Scan on table1 (cost=1.03 size=1 width=4)
>
> - SeqScan is used for small tables.
>
> So, only bug reported is left.
>
Can you get on IRC now? Why are you up so late?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026